> I was 10 minutes into my first trip in a driverless car when I realised my vehicle was potentially obstructing the president of the United States.
> Late for a press conference on the sidelines of the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, I called one of the autonomous Waymos that I had seen gliding past my hotel. At first, the climate-controlled Jaguar purred serenely through the downtown traffic. Then, in the midst of a fast-flowing six-lane avenue, it came to an abrupt halt. The problem, it became apparent, was that police officers in the intersection ahead were diverting cars — with vigorous arm signals — to the right. My autonomous chauffeur was refusing to obey.
> “Tell the Waymo it needs to go to the right,” bellowed the officer who stood in front of me. I was not sure to whom, or to what, I could communicate this, but sheepishly relayed his command out loud inside the car. There was no response. The Waymo kept pumping out soft jazz, indifferent to my appeals.
> Unpanicked, I pressed the “call support” button on the display, assuming it would be answered in real time. The phone rang for what seemed like an eternity, with the officers in front of me growing more irate by the second. One further back suggested to her colleague that the Waymo was not budging because he was standing directly in front of it. He moved, but the car did not, presumably determined not to disobey the traffic lights, which had turned red.
> By now, my Waymo was the lone civilian vehicle on the road and it dawned on me that the officers’ urgency might be due to the imminent arrival of a motorcade containing the convention’s headline act, Donald Trump, or a member of his cabinet. This was soon confirmed by the arrival of a Secret Service agent, wearing a black suit and a darker expression. “I need this vehicle to be out of here NOW, or it will be crushed,” he barked through the closed passenger window, strongly implying that I was somehow to blame.
> At this point, the support line was answered by a distinctly unhurried voice who suggested moving everyone 10ft away from the perimeter of the car — a suggestion that the US Secret Service did not take kindly to. In any event, it made no difference.
> I had seen enough. Against the advice of my remote interlocutor, I unbuckled my seatbelt, pushed the passenger door open, and fled into the 38C Dallas heat. Behind me, the agents continued to remonstrate with the recalcitrant vehicle. I looked back one last time to see the car, flanked by officers, finally start to crawl forward with its hazard lights on.
> After making it to the conference centre, this time with an Uber under human control, I received a call from a Waymo representative. It was, they said, “not really the experience that we wanted you to have”.
> The company’s press office later provided a more fulsome account of what went wrong. Apparently, the car had recognised and understood the officers’ hand gestures, but because the diversion required turning right across multiple lanes of traffic, it was programmed to wait for remote assistance. Said assistance was activated within seven seconds but was escalated to a team that deals with emergency personnel — hence the delay.
> It’s not clear how often Waymo is involved in stand-offs with the Secret Service, but its safety record is significantly better than human drivers. The cars are active in more than 15 major US cities and, while it has filed over 1,000 incident reports with regulators, most of them are minor scrapes.
> “We continually refine our technology’s performance to more seamlessly handle these types of scenarios,” a Waymo spokesperson said of my experience. “And we’ll continue to improve ahead of operating in environments where these situations are more common.”
> Looking up Waymo’s expansion plans, I learnt one of its next targets is my home city, Washington DC, where impromptu diversions for passing VIPs are indeed “more common”. The company might want to consider fine-tuning its vehicles’ ability to navigate motorcades before they are deployed here.
Sounds to me like the police and secret service were much of the problem here (big surprise). Even if you have no regard for your fellow man, barking orders is a bad way to get things done. Solving problems requires calm.
I remember a time when I repeatedly stalled my car because the person behind me kept blasting the horn and gesticulating at me.
> Said assistance was activated within seven seconds but was escalated to a team that deals with emergency personnel — hence the delay.
Shouldn’t emergency escalation be an immediate response, rather than a delay? Do they not have enough people to handle the amount of emergencies they receive?
The European empires were commercial ventures, extracting raw materials for the workshops and factories at home. These empires were already weakening in the nineteenth century, because social changes at home meant that practices like slavery were no longer acceptable, thus increasing the cost of administering the colonies, and decreasing profitability. The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts. It also pooled all the European empires into one system, so everyone could buy resources from anywhere, and the local elites (like my ancestors) who once had to be bought off can become corrupt politicians, so the West can disclaim any responsibility.
The MAGA movement's foreign policy forsakes this extraordinarily convenient system for the older system of explicit, militarily-defended empires. It brings the US into conflict with every power that matters in the world except Russia. The US will have to spend an awful lot on the Department of War to maintain its economic exclusivity arrangements, of the sort it is currently building with Venezuela. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick,' but MAGA has chosen to scream into the void about how big its stick is instead.
"The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts."
I wonder how Europe got there? Maybe they all decided to talk through their problems.
The rules-based order was first proposed in late Victorian Britain, as part of a wider debate as to how the British Empire should evolve, but yes, the World Wars made the idea a lot more attractive to much more of the world.
I live in the UK, which has roundabouts, mini roundabouts, double and triple roundabouts, traffic-light controlled roundabouts, and magic roundabouts. They work perfectly fine.
The difference is that traffic flows very differently in the UK to the US. In fact, the way traffic flows in those two countries captures a lot of their cultural differences. In the US, everything needs a grand overarching theory and imposed order, which is why Americans need traffic lights, and why they’re so keen on a very specific set of liberties that allow them to freely live such similar lifestyles. The UK embraces mild chaos and ruthless pragmatism, with everyone finding locally optimal solutions to their own problems, so things like roundabouts fit well with the national mindset.
Try Spanish roundabouts. On the whole, poorly designed, implemented and regulated. On roundabouts with two or more lanes, laws favour those on the outside lane, so everyone takes the outside lane even if they are travelling 3/4 of the way round. As a result drivers who are in a position to take an exit, do not take that exit. In addition, indicators are not used by most drivers, or they simply leave their indicators on all the way round. In addition, it is not allowed to exit a roundabout from the inside lane even on to a two lane exit. In addition many roundabouts have three lanes to enter onto a two lane roundabout, or two into one, etc. No one knows the rules, or follows them, and no one seems to care, from the civil engineers right down to the end users. The only winners are repair shops.
In comparison, UK roundabouts are civilised examples of harmonious intellectual etiquette. Enjoy them.
[source] I learned to drive in Swindon, home of the Magic Roundabout.
I live in the UK, drive occasionally in Spain due to Spanish in-laws, and agree wholeheartedly. I didn't know about the "outside lane has priority" rule though. I'd noticed it happening, but just thought it was a national quirk rather than gaming the system.
Because the US largely "grew up with cars", the economy was built around the expectation that folks can drive to work. The population density of the US reflects this, and mass transit just doesn't work in small/middle America. That means everyone needs to be able to drive. If you can't drive, you can't work. That isn't the case in the UK, and you'll notice a lot of these "driver beware" analysis is explained by the fact that driving in the UK is seen as a privilege whereas it is a right in the US. This sort of "mild chaos" is prohibitive for a lot of would-be UK drivers, and they just take the bus.
American, in an area getting more roundabouts. The two most heartfelt criticisms of roundabouts I've heard are:
- I have to pay attention every time I go through one. (Vs. having your mind elsewhere works fine with traffic lights? That might explain some of those T-bone crashes.)
From my PoV, roundabouts are generally a good thing. Mostly because local engineering standards for traffic lights are wretchedly low - so I can get where I'm going far faster through roundabouts.
As a European, that roundabout intersection looks fine? It might be slightly annoying to have to use all three roundabouts if you're exiting the highway northbound and want to take the southbound local road, but with the amount of exits there I can't imagine a junction would be better.
To an American it looks painfully small and slow for coming off a highway and would be overwhelmed often with cars and semi-truck traffic. One semi-truck would stop an entire circles worth of cars with its ass end swinging in and out. And highway travellers are going to be gun shy and not respond as quickly to gaps in the circle after doing 75+mph for an hour or more.
The fact that you mention light-controlled roundabouts highlights that they do not, actually, "work perfectly fine".
Roundabouts are a practical example of the tyranny of the majority; minor traffic flows suffer against major. The centre of Salisbury is a perfect example, constantly gridlocked at two roundabouts except at odd hours on a Sunday.
Adding traffic lights to 'fix' this problem then leads to tailbacks on the major routes and congestion on the roundabout, such that the timing sequence for the minor routes are subsequently reduced, returning to the original problem.
Roundabouts, in the plurality, are used as a lazy 'solution' to at-grade traffic crossing, which the road designers themselves presumably don't have to suffer. They also cause pollution from brake dust from slowing and exhaust fumes from accelerating.
> The fact that you mention light-controlled roundabouts highlights that they do not, actually, "work perfectly fine".
I don't think anyone is claiming that roundabouts work in every and all situations: design handbooks often say they're good 'up to X vehicles per hour/day'.[1] But that does not mean they do not work, or not useful, for <X.
Intersections are an engineering problem, and there is a hardly ever an engineering solution that works everywhere and always. There is usually a spectrum of solutions for the various situations that are faced.
Well we have very different experiences driving to, through, and around Salisbury. There's traffic, and it can get bad, but it isn't as bad as you say.
The council and national highways are working on it, but the problem is not one of roundabouts - its one of increases in traffic and lack of capability to make the roads bigger and/or build a bypass. Unless we're willing to knock down a load of housing and cultural sites we're stuck with something around or slightly more than the road capacity we have.
I don't want to celebrate UK roads too much. The majority of roundabout users in the UK are not indicating properly. Too many people are stopping at them when they have priority. Lanes are just a suggestion and using the correct lane is an invitation for someone to drive into the left of you.
In other areas: enough people don't know how to use a slip road that it becomes a problem to those who do. Likewise the flashing ambers of a pelican crossing. Lane discipline is much worse than on the continent, to the point you can see it creating traffic jams. Lots of people are driving big cars without the confidence needed to remain in their own lane.
There are millions of drivers who've never passed a theory test. We could do with more ruthlessness.
I feel like you're singling out UK drivers without much evidence here, I've driven lots across continental Europe, although mostly Spain<>France<>Germany<>Nordics, but in all countries people tend to not indicate properly, inside of roundabouts or outside of them. I'll admit to people in the Nordics being slightly better at signaling, but they make up by being so scared and non-confident in their driving that their hesitation causes near-accidents, rather than the opposite.
Still, all across the world the average driver seems to below what I imagined the average driver to be, before I started driving myself.
It may be user error, but that doesn't mean roundabouts aren't a footgun. It only takes one driver who doesn't do everything correctly to cause problems. It's not much fun driving around in the correct lane, only for someone to pull alongside you to the left (equivalent of "right" in the US, of course!). I failed a driving test because someone cut across me on a roundabout.
"I failed a driving test because someone cut across me on a roundabout." That driver may have cut across you on that roundabout but that doesn't mean roundabouts are a footgun.
When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.
The point is roundabouts require more work to navigate correctly than a four way intersection with traffic lights. Thus drivers are more likely to navigate incorrectly.
> When comparing two interfaces and one allows a larger amount of user error that interface is inferior.
Seeing a safety issue and ignoring all other considerations is an excellent example of the ‘overarching theory and imposed order’ I argued that Britain rejects in my first comment.
I mean, what you're trying to minimise is (frequency of misuse x consequences of misuse). signalised intersections target the frequency element, roundabouts target the consequences.
Not gonna lie, I know about the flashing ambers of the pelican crossing, but they are uncommon enough, whenever I see one, I spend several seconds wondering what is happening, until it clicks it's one of these crossings.
In very heavy traffic conditions I suspect that roundabouts can gridlock all directions in a worse way than a standard intersection with a yellow box because everyone tries to enter the roundabout then they get stuck in it, and then the whole traffic is brought to a halt, including directions that should be unaffected. This happens very often where I live.
The UK has an over-reliance on roundabouts for junctions with motorways and large roads. They are also missing out on Turbo roundabouts, which are super cool and very common in the Netherlands.
My grandparents did this, but didn’t realise that it would be useful to write down what each password was for. They also didn’t realise that the spelling of a password was important.
lol well yeah. This book has fields for website, and A-Z legends, so presumably you put your Amazon password in the A section, and your hacker news password in the H section, and it's useful.
But I've been helping my MIL with some tech stuff lately. She signed up for Verizon 5G home internet, and cancelled her whole Comcast/Xfinity account. And was then surprised to find she wouldn't have cable TV anymore. :P
Also, Verizon coverage in her unit is terrible which she should know because she has them for her cell phone. But I guess she never realized that the internet was good at home because of the wifi from cable. sigh
That might be true for them to know it was AI. Which yes, was how I worded it. But not necessarily good enough for it to be differentiated from everything else.
For example, in the Bootstrap days everything looked like Bootstrap and users got used to that, even if users hadn't specifically heard of the CSS framework.
And two more were supposed to come from Aliexpress but they got stopped at customs because of asbestos contamination. That's why there's that gap on the southwest side.
My grandfather got his driving licence in 1940s Australia without doing a test, because the police sergeant who was supposed to conduct the test couldn't be bothered and was more interested in a ten-shilling note.
> Finally, we show that both free news access and media education improve media literacy skills (+0.08 to 0.26 sd), with larger effects among students taught by teachers with prior experience in media education.
They taught the teenagers how to question and interrogate the claims presented in the newspapers, which is far more effective than blindly branding 'MSM newspapers' as propaganda. (The study was conducted in France; are you sure that conventional French newspapers are propaganda of any inclination?)
I used to read the Grauniad, but I've become distrustful of it over the past few years because of how aggressively it panders to my sensibilities and biases. Also, it doesn't pursue any story more than any other broadsheet would; it's just a matter of what stories it chooses to pursue.
> I was 10 minutes into my first trip in a driverless car when I realised my vehicle was potentially obstructing the president of the United States.
> Late for a press conference on the sidelines of the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, I called one of the autonomous Waymos that I had seen gliding past my hotel. At first, the climate-controlled Jaguar purred serenely through the downtown traffic. Then, in the midst of a fast-flowing six-lane avenue, it came to an abrupt halt. The problem, it became apparent, was that police officers in the intersection ahead were diverting cars — with vigorous arm signals — to the right. My autonomous chauffeur was refusing to obey.
> “Tell the Waymo it needs to go to the right,” bellowed the officer who stood in front of me. I was not sure to whom, or to what, I could communicate this, but sheepishly relayed his command out loud inside the car. There was no response. The Waymo kept pumping out soft jazz, indifferent to my appeals.
> Unpanicked, I pressed the “call support” button on the display, assuming it would be answered in real time. The phone rang for what seemed like an eternity, with the officers in front of me growing more irate by the second. One further back suggested to her colleague that the Waymo was not budging because he was standing directly in front of it. He moved, but the car did not, presumably determined not to disobey the traffic lights, which had turned red.
> By now, my Waymo was the lone civilian vehicle on the road and it dawned on me that the officers’ urgency might be due to the imminent arrival of a motorcade containing the convention’s headline act, Donald Trump, or a member of his cabinet. This was soon confirmed by the arrival of a Secret Service agent, wearing a black suit and a darker expression. “I need this vehicle to be out of here NOW, or it will be crushed,” he barked through the closed passenger window, strongly implying that I was somehow to blame.
> At this point, the support line was answered by a distinctly unhurried voice who suggested moving everyone 10ft away from the perimeter of the car — a suggestion that the US Secret Service did not take kindly to. In any event, it made no difference.
> I had seen enough. Against the advice of my remote interlocutor, I unbuckled my seatbelt, pushed the passenger door open, and fled into the 38C Dallas heat. Behind me, the agents continued to remonstrate with the recalcitrant vehicle. I looked back one last time to see the car, flanked by officers, finally start to crawl forward with its hazard lights on.
> After making it to the conference centre, this time with an Uber under human control, I received a call from a Waymo representative. It was, they said, “not really the experience that we wanted you to have”.
> The company’s press office later provided a more fulsome account of what went wrong. Apparently, the car had recognised and understood the officers’ hand gestures, but because the diversion required turning right across multiple lanes of traffic, it was programmed to wait for remote assistance. Said assistance was activated within seven seconds but was escalated to a team that deals with emergency personnel — hence the delay.
> It’s not clear how often Waymo is involved in stand-offs with the Secret Service, but its safety record is significantly better than human drivers. The cars are active in more than 15 major US cities and, while it has filed over 1,000 incident reports with regulators, most of them are minor scrapes.
> “We continually refine our technology’s performance to more seamlessly handle these types of scenarios,” a Waymo spokesperson said of my experience. “And we’ll continue to improve ahead of operating in environments where these situations are more common.”
> Looking up Waymo’s expansion plans, I learnt one of its next targets is my home city, Washington DC, where impromptu diversions for passing VIPs are indeed “more common”. The company might want to consider fine-tuning its vehicles’ ability to navigate motorcades before they are deployed here.
reply